OT110

Introduction

The superscription (Amos 1:1; cf. 7:9–11) sets the historical context of the prophet’s ministry in the early to mid-eighth century BCE, during the reigns of Jeroboam II of Israel and Uzziah/Azariah of Judah. Amos is said to come from Tekoa in Judah, modern Khirbet Tequ‘a, about ten kilometers southeast of Jerusalem. The opening verse mentions an earthquake (see also 6:9–11; 8:8; 9:1, 5; cf. Zech. 14:5), which seismic studies locate between 760 and 750 BCE.

International circumstances had allowed Israel to attain prominence (2 Kgs. 14:25). Aram/Syria, Israel’s northern neighbor and principal foe in the second half of the ninth century, was in decline. Assyria was weakened after the death of Adad Nirari III in 783 and would not influence the region again until Tiglath Pileser III assumed the throne in 745. The oracles in Amos 1 and in 4:10; 6:3, 13, if they reflect this setting, suggest that Israel was not as strong as the national ideology pretended. In addition to recent defeats by bordering countries, in the future an unnamed enemy would invade the land (3:11; 6:14). These words would be fulfilled by Assyria.

The book accuses the powerful of oppression, even as they enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle (Amos 3:15; 4:1; 5:10–11; 6:1, 4–6). The judicial system was compromised (5:12, 15), and many had fallen into debt slavery (2:6–8; 8:4–6). Sociological approaches try to reconstruct these mechanisms of exploitation (see surveys in Houston; Coomber). Some argue that the text attacks a form of rent capitalism, others an inequitable tributary mode of production under the monarchy’s control. Another possibility is that the mutual obligations of the patron-client relationship had been violated. A cultural-evolutionary perspective suggests that environmental factors, changes in traditional sociocultural roles, asymmetric economic relationships, and the actions of religious elites all played a part. Each option alerts readers to the concreteness of the prophetic message.

Composition, Structure, Literary Elements

From the late nineteenth and into the twentieth century, scholarship attempted to distinguish the ipsissima verba (“actual words”) of the prophet from later additions. Subsequently, form and tradition critics claimed to identify editorial stages connected to specific historical settings (e.g., Wolff). Several hypotheses about the redactional history have been put forward in the last two decades (see the surveys in Carroll R.; Barton). Some recent scholars contend that the book is a postexilic creation of a scribal class in the Persian province of Yehud in the fifth to fourth centuries BCE. There have also been efforts to correlate the production of Amos with the process of compiling the Book of the Twelve. Similar wording might imply mutual influence between books. For example, Joel 3:16a is repeated in Amos 1:2a, and the mention of Edom at 9:12 anticipates Obadiah.

A second group of scholars defends the authenticity of all or most of the book. Some connect the diverse emphases in the book to different times in Amos’s ministry (e.g., Andersen and Freedman). Others look to comparative ancient Near Eastern linguistic and archaeological data as the basis for an eighth-century date (e.g., Paul). New archaeological discoveries, such as the excavations at Tell es-Safi (referred to as Gath in Amos 6:2) and the discovery of extensive copper smelting in the Arabah of Edom (1:11–12), suggest a stronger historical basis than many have considered viable. Evidence from Mesopotamia reveals that prophecies could have been recorded soon after the delivery of oracles. This contradicts the common view that prophetic oracles circulated orally for a long time before being written down.

Literary studies are yet another kind of approach. They presuppose the unity of the book. Its artistry of form and language and intricate theological argument suggest a consistent authorial or editorial hand. Critical scholars increasingly recognize the book’s literary features and incorporate them into their redaction studies (e.g., Jeremias). Those who conceive of Amos as part of the Scripture of the church also champion the canonical form. This is the text that Christians read and use for worship and the practice of their faith. The new field of the theological interpretation of the Bible seeks to nurture skills for such readings and values precritical interpretations.

Literary features of Amos include many metaphors and similes, wordplays, rhetorical questions, chiasms, and merism. Recognizable form-critical categories are the messenger formula (“thus says the LORD”), judgment speeches, the proclamation formula (“Hear this”), and the woe-cry. The oracles against the nations (Amos 1:3–2:16) use the n/n + 1 graded numerical saying (“For three transgressions of …, and for four”). The book has a penchant for series of five and seven items, which will be pointed out in the commentary. Finally, some believe that the entire book exhibits a chiasm with 5:7–8 at its center. A chiasm is a concentric structure, which repeats similar ideas or terminology in a reverse matching sequence. Its climax is in the middle, not at the end of the pattern.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

Amos 1:1 combines “words” with “he saw,” thereby connecting the prophet’s spoken message with the visions (chapters 7–9). Verse 2 is a fitting foreword to the themes of the book: YHWH’s roar (3:8; see also 3:4, 12), distressed fields (4:7–9), mourning (NRSV “wither”; 5:16; 8:8, 10; 9:5), Zion (6:1; 9:11), and Carmel (9:3). The force of the message is communicated through the metaphor of a devouring lion. YHWH appears as a lion in several prophets (Isa. 31:4; Jer. 25:38; Lam. 3:10–11; Hosea 5:14; 13:8; Mic. 5:8). The lion conveys power and fear. Importantly, the voice of YHWH comes from Jerusalem and Zion, not Samaria and Bethel. From the beginning, the book discredits the northern kingdom’s government and religious system. The future beyond the judgment lay with the southern monarchy (9:11). The Judean Amos probably was a man of means, not a simple shepherd. He is called a noqed in 1:1, a term used elsewhere only of a king with huge flocks (2 Kgs. 3:4). According to 7:14–15, Amos was a herdsman, which could suggest that he also owned cattle. Sycamore trees do not grow in the region of Tekoa, so he may have owned other properties. Amos is knowledgeable of international affairs, and, if these messages do come from him, he was quite the poet. No poor shepherd here!

The oracles against the nations in 1:3–2:16 constitute the first of three major sections in Amos. These oracles set the tone of judgment for the rest of the book. These two chapters begin by condemning the transgressions of surrounding peoples before turning their gaze to Judah and Israel. Oracles against the nations is a common genre in the prophetic literature (see Isaiah 13–23; Jeremiah 46–51; Zephaniah 2). These oracles use what is called the n/n + 1 formula, where n is the number three, but do not list the four transgressions. The purpose may be to convey the habit of wrongdoing or to single out the worst behavior. Some believe that the numbers three and four should be added together, with seven symbolizing the fullness of sin. The repetitious language, with slight variations, interconnects the series (Paul, 7–15).

It is difficult to identify the events that lie behind these indictments, as no specifics are given. Some of these nations were long-standing enemies, so various settings are possible. Perhaps these oracles refer to ongoing skirmishes along national boundaries (see Amos 4:10). The constant thread throughout is cruelty in warfare. “Threshing sledges of iron” in Amos 1:3 might refer to physical torture or could be a figurative expression for ruthlessness (cf. 2 Kgs. 13:7; Isa. 41:15), while 1:11 reveals uncontrolled bloodlust in battle. Philistia and Tyre are denounced for human trafficking, probably of captives taken in war (1:6–10). Ripping open pregnant women bespeaks unbelievable barbarity (1:13; cf. 2 Kgs. 8:12; 15:16), and the desecration of a tomb violated ancient respect for the dead (2:1; cf. 2 Kgs. 23:16).

Amos 1:3–2:3 announces judgment on these other nations for their atrocities; fires will consume the fortresses of their capital cities, symbols of military strength. Several oracles target the leadership, decreeing either death or exile (1:5, 8, 15; 2:3). These persons were most responsible for instigating armed conflicts and the suffering of the casualties. All but the last oracle may allude to Israel’s defeats. If so, they put the lie to the boasting of 6:13 and the nation’s patriotic theology about the day of the LORD (5:18–20).

The formulaic introduction and endings to the Judah and Israel oracles (Amos 2:4–6, 6–16) echo those of 1:3–2:3. That is, they are transgressors like the other nations and will suffer a similar fate. Their sin, though, is directed inward: violation of the law’s demands (Judah) and the socioeconomic exploitation of the poor (Israel). It is difficult to specify with confidence the nature of the abuse. For instance, does 2:6 refer to bribery of judges or to unpaid debts, however small, that lead to debt slavery (see 8:6)? Is the young woman of 2:8 a relative with whom father and son commit sexual impropriety or a debt slave abused by the men of the house? Whatever their exact meanings, all options are unacceptable. Israel also ignored the gracious acts of God in their past and compromised his representatives (2:9–12). Note that the seven transgressions of 2:6–8 are matched by seven kinds of soldiers in 2:14–16. Perfect sin merits complete defeat.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

War was a constant reality in Old Testament times. The prophetic literature does not shy away from describing its horrors or denouncing religious ideologies that legitimated war. These oracles declare that cruelty in war will not go unpunished, as human life is precious in the sight of God. History is not purposeless; it has a moral framework and direction. This section teaches that God judges by turning warlike peoples over to the violence they perpetrate. In the Old Testament, this judgment takes the form of lex talionis: punishment corresponds to the crime. Here, to instigate war will mean experiencing the same at the hand of another people (cf. Isa. 10:5–19; Hab. 2:4–17).

Interpreting the oracles of 1:3–2:3 as attacks on Israel, rabbinic commentators emphasized the cruelty of the Gentiles and their punishment as an indication of God’s favor (Neusner, 16–17, 63; Sweeney et al., 1036–37). Some church fathers allegorized certain lines. Gregory the Great held that 1:13 referred to the enemies of the gospel. To enhance their reputation (borders), they twist the truth about God in those whose full understanding of the gospel has not yet matured. Tertullian believed that 2:6 predicted the selling of Jesus by Judas (Ferreiro, 86, 88). The Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin connected the censure of 2:8 with the greed of the priests and monks of their day (Luther, 141; Calvin, 187). For Calvin, the stubborn distortion of the Word of God by the Jews (cf. Acts 7:51) and the lies of the Catholic Church are manifest in 2:4; appeal to tradition (their “fathers”) is no excuse (Calvin, 178).

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

These four chapters provide details that substantiate the condemnation of Israel’s social and religious transgressions and the announcement of divine judgment. Chapters 5 and 6 also weave in laments for the losses that this punishment will bring.

“Hear this,” declares the prophet in Amos 3:1–2. These lines communicate that to be the chosen people of God carries special responsibility. Israel could not claim ignorance of the ways of YHWH. A series of seven rhetorical questions follows (3:3–6), progressing from an undefined meeting in 3:3 through to encounters that all lead to death and culminating in the disaster God brings to the city—in context, Samaria the capital. YHWH the lion (cf. 1:2; 3:12) has roared this decree through his prophet (3:7–8). The rest of the chapter reveals its sense: an enemy will destroy Samaria’s defenses, Bethel’s altars, and the extravagant homes of the well-to-do. Oppression reigns, and its fruits sustain the sociopolitical system—practices that would shock even Israel’s enemies (3:9–10). Amos 4:1–3 announces the fate of the self-indulgent wives of the powerful, whom he mocks as “cows of Bashan” (a fertile area famous for its cattle; Jer. 50:19; Mic. 7:14). In a change of metaphor, the text says that they will be taken far away to exile, like hooked fish, through breaches in the walls of the defeated city.

A new subsection begins at Amos 4:4. Surprising irony gives bite to the prophetic word. Israel is beckoned to worship at the historic shrines of Bethel and Gilgal, but the people’s worship is sin. The sacrifices mentioned in 4:4–5 do not deal with transgression; this is a religion of celebration and gratitude to the national deity. These activities satiate their religious impulses (4:5), but they are disconnected from the recent tragedies of hunger, drought, crop failure, and war (4:6–11). The refrain “yet you did not return to me” is repeated five times, emphasizing their estrangement from God. All their religious fervor was for naught and misplaced. Now they must prepare for a terrifying meeting with YHWH, not at those sanctuaries but face-to-face. Amos 4:13 is the first of three hymns that highlight the power of the sovereign God to judge (cf. 5:8–9; 9:5–6). He is YHWH God of Hosts, a name that includes a foreboding military epithet.

Like Amos 3:1 and 4:1, 5:1 begins with “Hear this word.” Amos 5:1–3, following as it does the announcement of 4:12–13, reveals that the encounter with God will mean decimation of the towns in war, surely the conflict foretold in 3:6–4:3. Israel is compared to a young woman dying before reaching her potential in maturity. This oracle opens a chiasm that extends through 5:17. The deaths of 5:1–3 are matched by the ubiquitous laments in 5:16–17. The call to seek God and not the sanctuaries is echoed in 5:14–15 by the exhortation to seek and love the good, which is justice under YHWH God of Hosts. The distortion of justice and righteousness in 5:7 is fleshed out in 5:10–13 as the exploitation of the poor through taxes, bribery in the courts, and the silencing of those who would stand up to defend them. At the heart of this chiasm is the book’s second hymn, in 5:8–9. The powerful creator God, who made the stars and controls the daily rhythms of nature, tears down the strong and their fortresses. In this hymn is found the climax of the chiasm and perhaps of the entire book: “YHWH is his name.” Once again, as in 4:4–13, the person of God is at stake for the prophet. The YHWH perpetrated and praised at Bethel and Gilgal does not question injustice and in the end cannot save them. The true God indeed would be with them (5:14), but not in the way they had imagined. The prophet’s YHWH will punish Israel’s perverse theology and the society that it legitimated.

Amos 5:18–27 continues the themes of unacceptable civil religion and defeat. It begins with “woe!” connecting these verses back to the wailing of 5:16–17. This passage can be appreciated as a conceptual chiasm that again announces defeat. The negation of the mistaken common belief in future victory (5:18–20) will be confirmed by a future exile, when Israel will carry with them the foreign gods who were supposed to protect them (5:26–27). The many unacceptable practices of Israel’s worship (5:21–23) stand in contrast to an earlier, purer faith (5:25). At the center of this structure is the demand to have justice and righteousness flow—not as intermittent water in the wadis of that dry land, but as a never-ending stream. Once more, religion and ethics are portrayed as inseparable. How different this mandate for justice and righteousness is from the nation’s values (cf. 5:7)!

Several literary features highlight the message of divine rejection. Amos 5:20 emphatically repeats the notion of darkness in 5:18, while 5:19 conveys the inescapability of painful judgment. In other words, the triumphal day of the LORD (its earliest mention in the prophetic literature) anticipated by the national ideology will be turned on its head. Defeat not victory is in the offing, and that by God’s hand. The emotive verbs with which 5:21 begins demonstrate how visceral is the rejection of Israel’s religious practices. Note that 5:21–23 lists seven religious practices, expanding on those mentioned in 4:4–5. Amos 5:26 is a disputed verse in terms of the tense of the verb (past or future) and the apparent reference to astral deities (for a survey of opinions, see Paul, 194–98).

Amos 6 opens with another woe (6:1–7). The first target of the prophetic invective is the powerful, who feel confident in comparing the nation to surrounding peoples. They selfishly enjoy in abundance the finest meat, wine, and oils, while the rest of the population suffers want (cf. 4:6–10). The scene described in these verses could be a marzeah feast, apparently a banquet celebrated by the wealthy that might have been connected to funerary rights (cf. Jer. 16:5). This fete is known from different parts of the ancient world, so there may have been influence from other cultures that made the activity even more unacceptable. The fate of this uncaring elite repeats that of the women of 4:1–3.

The second half of Amos 6 broadens the judgment to include all Israel (6:8–14). Here the transgression is national arrogance. Its military is ridiculed in 6:13. The people rejoice in having taken lo’ davar, literally “no-thing.” A great victory indeed! Their fortresses and armies, supposedly the proof of Israel’s power, will not be able to shield it from the death and border-to-border destruction of the coming invasion. The foolish confidence of Israel—from the wealthy to the masses—is as incomprehensible as plowing the sea, as imprudent as the manipulation of justice (cf. 5:7).

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

Not many lines of Amos are cited in the literature of Qumran and the New Testament. The Damascus Document, however, reinterprets Amos 5:25–26 as a word of encouragement for the Essene community, who successfully took the true Word of God into exile—that is, away from the evil city of Jerusalem. Stephen quotes the Septuagint translation of 5:25–27 in his speech before the Sanhedrin to demonstrate Israel’s historic rebellion and idolatry (Acts 7:42–43). This is the first of only two occasions where the words of Amos appear explicitly in the New Testament. The other passage is 9:11, to which James appeals at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (for other possible allusions, see Sweeney et al., 1038–39).

Rabbi Simla in the third century suggested that Amos 5:4 (“Seek me and live”) was a précis of the 613 commandments (b. Mak. 23b–24a). Though appreciative of Amos’s moral focus, rabbinic commentators were reluctant to accept the comprehensive destruction of the people of God predicted in the book. Some limited the judgment of 5:18–19, for example, to the gentiles and believed that the light of the day of the LORD referred to the redemption of Messiah. Others explained the wounding by various animals in 5:19 as that done to the Jews by the sequence of empires, beginning with Babylon (Neusner, 67–68).

Alberto Ferreiro (95–96) reports that based on the Septuagint’s mistranslation, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Augustine saw in Amos 4:13 a prediction of the coming of Jesus (“he makes known to humanity his Messiah”). Further, Athanasius and Ambrose argued against those who said that the creation of the wind in this verse referred to the creation of the Spirit (the word for both is the same in Hebrew). Other passages the church fathers employed in contending with others include Tertullian’s interpretation of 5:10 as a general negative description of the Jewish people; John Chrysostom’s belief that 5:21–24 substantiated the worthlessness of Jewish rituals; and Jerome’s connection of the boast of 6:13 with the arrogance of heretics. In his comments on 6:1, Tertullian pointed to the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) and the healing of the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:17) as Jesus reversing the condemnation of 6:1 for those responding to him. Chrysostom and Basil the Great warned Christians not to fall into the fleeting and self-destructive excesses of 6:4–6 (Ferreiro, 100, 102, 104–6).

The Reformers also applied the prophetic oracles of Amos 4–6 to their context. Luther, for instance, preached that the victories of the Turks were God’s chastisement of Europe to help bring them to faith, just like what had been preached to Israel in 4:6–10 (Luther, 153). He related 5:10 to Germany’s political and religious leaders; and Calvin perceived the evils of 5:10–13 as present in his day too (Calvin, 265). Both read their doctrinal frameworks back into Amos’s words. In 5:4–6, Luther (158–59) finds the distinction between true faith accepted in grace and the empty religious works of the Catholic Church. Calvin (252–55) uses these verses to teach that the wider preaching of repentance does not contradict the salvation of only the predestined elect; public proclamation renders all beyond excuse and confirms them in their sin.

An outstanding case of the appropriation of Amos’s message is the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola (1452–1498). In a series of sermons on Amos and Zechariah preached in Florence during Lent of 1496, Savonarola railed against the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the city for their corruption and for the emptiness of the rituals of the Catholic Church. For this boldness, he was jailed and executed (Barton, 172–74).

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Liberation theologians find prophetic support in Amos 5:7, 10–13, to condemn structural evil. Amos 3–6 also provides material for denouncing religious stances that support oppressive and nationalistic ideologies of the status quo. Some Latin American liberationists developed new liturgies and structures of Christian life (base ecclesial communities) as alternatives to the historic ecclesiastical institutions, which did not condemn oppression and had provided religious backing for unjust ideologies. These theologians utilized a measure of the Marxist critiques of religion against the blessings of dictatorships by many Catholic and Protestant churches (or at least their passive acceptance) and their promotion of a fatalistic, otherworldly religion that did not respond to the needs of the people. The goal of these liberationists was the creation of fresh expressions of the faith that would partner in social transformation (Carroll R. 1992, 91–122, 289–306).

The most well-known verse in the book is Amos 5:24: “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Martin Luther King Jr. quoted it in his famous speech on the Washington mall in August 1963. From an African American perspective, this line is also a rebuke of Southern evangelicalism’s past support of slavery and segregation. The resiliency of African American Christian faith is evident in its songs, so the hymns of Amos resonate too (see Robertson). Some feminists dislike 4:1, believing it to be a distasteful characterization of women, though it may be more of a mockery of the excesses of a small wealthy elite than of women in general. They do point out, however, that Amos does not use the harlot metaphor prominent in other prophetic books.

The issue of the historical judgments of God was touched on earlier, but a particular dimension of the means of judgment surfaces conspicuously in these chapters: the role of the created order. The power of God in nature appears in the hymns of Amos 4:13 and 5:8–9 (cf. 9:5–6); 4:6–10 cites ecological disasters as divine judgments (cf. 1:2; 8:8–9); and the rhetorical questions of 3:4–5 and 6:12 appeal to the animal world. These passages suggest nature’s cooperation with YHWH in judgment, even as human transgressions have ecological impact (cf. Hosea 4:1–3). The future flourishing of the community is also defined by natural bounty (9:11–15). These observations do not mean that the book is concerned directly with ecological matters, nor does it mean that all natural disasters should be identified as divine judgments. At the very least, however, the prophetic message should stimulate reflection on the interconnectedness of human communities and their ethical behavior with the nonhuman world, for good or for ill (Marlow, 120–57 and passim).

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The last three chapters of Amos contain five visions, three of which are followed by material that illustrates and expands their themes (Amos 7:10–17; 8:4–14; 9:5–10). The book closes with a brief description of a glorious restoration after the judgment of God.

The first two visions describe devastating judgments (Amos 7:1–6). The first is a locust plague (cf. Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:42; Joel 1), which occurs after the second crop (vegetables and legumes) was sprouting and while the grain would be maturing in the fields. The timing could not be worse, as this represented complete agricultural loss. The second vision is more mythological in its mention of the cosmic deep (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 51:10), but the message is similar: complete destruction. The prophet intercedes, pleading for YHWH to forgive and stop. Note the contrast between the nation’s delusional hubris and Amos’s clear appreciation of Israel’s standing before God and in the world (“How can Jacob stand? / He is so small”)!

With the third vision, intercession ends. Any hope for reprieve is dashed (Amos 7:7–9). The usual translation of ’anak (this word appears only in this passage in the entire Old Testament) is “plumb line.” This has led to the interpretation that the people, represented by the wall, have not lived in conformity to YHWH’s standards. This Akkadian loanword, however, means “tin” (Andersen and Freedman, 757–59; Paul, 233–35). This translation fits well in context and reinforces the declaration about the weakness of Israel. In this vision, the mighty fortresses of Israel are made of tin. While at a distance, the impression might be that they are of iron, in truth they are feeble. Once again, the nation is deceived, its boasting empty (cf. 6:13). God rips out a piece of this pathetic wall and throws it in their midst. It follows, then, that the defenses of Israel can protect its illegitimate worship places or the monarchy (7:9).

The narrative of Amos 7:10–17 carries on the thread of the destruction of the religious and political institutions. Bethel was Israel’s most important sanctuary, where the civil religion of Israel was celebrated and promoted (7:13). Amaziah, the chief priest, recognizes the threat of Amos’s words to that social construction of reality and demands that he return to his own country and earn his keep as a prophet there. Amos’s response is to declare that he is not a prophet by trade or descent, but rather by the calling of God. As explained earlier, 7:14 and 1:1 suggest that he was a man of some status. Amos’s standing probably gave weight to his words, enough so that his audience would pay attention and the king and his priest worry about his impact. The fate of the priest, along with his family’s, encapsulates the coming national experience of judgment (7:17).

The meaning of the fourth vision (Amos 8:1–3) is based on a wordplay: qayits (“summer fruit”) and qēts (“end”). The basket of ripe fruit symbolizes that Israel’s end has come. With that will come wailing in the temple (or palace; the Hebrew term is the same for both). Either place was appropriate, as each was central to how the nation had devolved. There would be mourning, not celebratory songs (cf. 8:10; 5:16–17). The text returns to the economic exploitation of the poor and exposes from another angle the elite’s perverse view of religion (8:4–6). Once again, the text emphasizes the power of the Creator in judgment (8:7–9). Soon the prophetic word would end, and lack of food (4:6) would be superseded by the absence of a word from God (8:11–13). Amos 8:14 may refer to foreign gods or different appellations of YHWH at various cultic sites (Paul, 268–72). Either option merited censure, as both exhibited syncretistic tendencies.

The final vision pictures the destruction of the temple at Bethel (Amos 9:1–4). Previous passages foretold the breaking of its altars (3:14) and its burning (5:6), but here its demolition is definitive. This was where the false YHWH of the national ideology was constructed and worshiped; this was where everything that was wrong with the nation—socially, economically, politically, militarily—received religious sanction. Here the judgment must begin. The punishment’s comprehensiveness here is communicated by merisms—that is, the mention of two extremes with the idea that everything in between is meant.

Like previously, the incomparable sovereignty of the God who will judge Israel is celebrated in a hymn (cf. Amos 4:13; 5:8–9). The nation, although chosen of YHWH, is not exempt from judgment (9:7; cf. 3:1–2). YHWH was involved in the history of its neighbors too (cf. 1:3–2:3). Amos 9:8–10 clarifies that comprehensive punishment did not mean the eradication of Israel. A remnant would be left, even if in exile. This glimpse of hope is expanded in 9:11–15. After the devastation of judgment would come a new government, not of the misdirected northern regime but of the Davidic line (cf. 1:2). From the rubble would rise a people restored to the land, secure and prosperous, no longer attacked by other nations but sharing with them a relationship with YHWH. This time would be the reversal of the want and war of their present condition. This stark contrast has long led many scholars to argue that 9:11–15 is an exilic or postexilic addition, inserted to give hope after the fulfillment of the predicted judgments.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

Some church fathers believed that Amos came from humble beginnings. Thus Gregory the Great pointed out how the Spirit can raise the humble to do great things for God (Ferreiro, 109–10). Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Cyprian believed that Amos 8:9–10 predicted the signs accompanying the crucifixion of Jesus (Ferreiro, 112). The warning of the famine of the word of God in 8:11–13 was taken by both the rabbis and the Reformers as an alert to heed the teaching of the Torah and correct doctrine, respectively (Sweeney et al., 1036; Luther, 182–84; Calvin, 376–80).

Among the Qumran materials, Amos 9:11 is listed in the collection of texts of the Florilegium (4QFlor 1:1–13). Apart from 5:5–26, this is the only passage cited and expounded in that community’s literature. Rabbinic commentators understood 9:11–15 eschatologically as descriptions of the messianic era (Neusner, 103; Sweeney et al., 1037). In the New Testament, James quotes Amos 9:11–12 at the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:12–21). He grounds his argument for the inclusion of the gentiles on the Septuagint of 9:12 (“so that the rest of humankind may seek the Lord”).

In the Christian tradition, Amos 9:11 has been interpreted christologically. Augustine and Chrysostom believed that the raising of the fallen tabernacle of David was a reference to the resurrection of Jesus (Ferreiro, 116). Luther says that the tabernacle of David is his descendants, out of whom Christ would arise, who would build the church (Luther, 189). Likewise, Calvin sees here a reference to the first advent (Calvin, 404–7). Both equate 9:12–15 to the spiritual blessings that accompany Christ’s kingdom (Luther, 189–90; Calvin, 407–13).

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

What has been said earlier about the modern appropriation of Amos holds true in this final section. Here, too, are found the critique of the false consciousness of civil religion, the denunciation of socioeconomic oppression, and the connection between nature and the acts of God. Here also is a model of performing the prophetic office despite official opposition. The narrative of Amos 7:10–17 has empowered advocates of the marginalized in their struggle to proclaim and work for social transformation in YHWH’s name. That courageous stance for justice, come what may, is one of this book’s enduring legacies. Martin Luther King Jr. said that Christians should be as “maladjusted” as Amos to their context and speak out against injustice (Carroll R. 2002, 57–58).

Finally, Amos 9:11–15 teaches that the oppressions of today and the judgments of those wrongs are not the final word of God (Carroll R. 2002, 70–72). Beyond the losses inherent in those two realities and as a reversal of what we now endure will come the rebuilding, the raising, and the repairing of the ruins, abundance instead of want, and secure roots instead of displacement. We may live now in the place and hour of oppression as we await divine validation, or perhaps in that in-between time after what we believe is God’s judgment and as we await God’s new tomorrow. This prophetic hope can sustain the weary and encourage perseverance in the march toward justice.